The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 11-22-2010, 06:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Camilla should automatically become Queen, but if the public think she shouldn't be Queen and Prince Charles obviously thought that at one point, then the government and Charles will have to re-consider the decision.

We might be talking about things years in advance, but something like this needs to be sorted before HM passes away.
Just like a change in the succesion needs to be sorted out before William has children.
Which generation, as in age group, would you class as the ones who barely remember Diana?

Anyone under 18 would have no real memory of Diana as they would have been 5 when she died. Every year more people are born who have no memory of her. In 10 years time over a third of the population will have no memory - about a third of the population are under 30. In 20 years it will be closer to 50%.

Camilla will automatically become Queen. To stop her will require some for of LPs or even legislation and I remember Lord Melbourne's comment to Queen Victoria when she wanted to create Albert 'King Consort' - if parliament can make a king then they can unmake a king. The same argument could be used in reverse - if the parliament has to unmake a Queen Consort they could simply do away with the monarchy altogether.

I think the parliament and the BRF really don't like the idea of debating too much about the royal family as it would simply raise certain issues they don't want raised - like republicanism and the tax-breaks of the royal family.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 11-22-2010, 06:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frideswide View Post
I'm interested to know why you think that.
I direct your question to the thread 'Title for Camilla' and it is there that your curiosity shall be answered Or maybe not, I don't know?..haha.

It was some time ago now, so a little searching will be required.
__________________

__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 11-22-2010, 08:41 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Anyone under 18 would have no real memory of Diana as they would have been 5 when she died. Every year more people are born who have no memory of her. In 10 years time over a third of the population will have no memory - about a third of the population are under 30. In 20 years it will be closer to 50%.

Camilla will automatically become Queen. To stop her will require some for of LPs or even legislation and I remember Lord Melbourne's comment to Queen Victoria when she wanted to create Albert 'King Consort' - if parliament can make a king then they can unmake a king. The same argument could be used in reverse - if the parliament has to unmake a Queen Consort they could simply do away with the monarchy altogether.

I think the parliament and the BRF really don't like the idea of debating too much about the royal family as it would simply raise certain issues they don't want raised - like republicanism and the tax-breaks of the royal family.
Parliment isn't about to raise a stink about denying Camilla the throne when they have more pressing issues.
__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 11-22-2010, 08:43 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,335
That's probably would be the last thing that they would want to get into.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 11-22-2010, 10:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
The ladies on 'The VIEW' (it's on the television but I'm not watching it as such) are attempting to dissect the topic of Camilla's title, and my god, these women wouldn't know facts if they came up and bit them on the ankles.

* Usually, the wife of the King is the 'Princess Consort'

* Elizabeth II's father was George VII

* Apparently George VII was Queen Victoria's son, according to Joy.

.lol.

Such ignorance. If you're going to talk about something, at least do a little background research before you open your mouth.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 11-22-2010, 10:17 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
Oh dear! I thought the women on The View, or some of them anyway, were reasonably well informed, or at least had a bit of common sense. If Elizabeth is Victoria's grand-daughter, she is holding her age very well!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 11-22-2010, 10:42 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
Why thank you. And it was entirely on the fly.
NAP, I just love you to death!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 11-22-2010, 10:47 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Anyone under 18 would have no real memory of Diana as they would have been 5 when she died. Every year more people are born who have no memory of her. In 10 years time over a third of the population will have no memory - about a third of the population are under 30. In 20 years it will be closer to 50%.
At the risk of dating myself I am absolutely able to remember what actually took place vs. the whitewash that has been copiously applied subsequently, thank you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 11-22-2010, 11:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 980
I was exactly 11 1/2 when Diana died...I would definitely say that I remember Diana. My brother is four years younger and remembers watching the funeral.

But I don't think being an eyewitness to history is the only factor affecting how a person views history. I'm sure that at the age of 11, I knew much more about the royal family than other 11 year-olds, simply because I was interested in royalty. Probably in the year or so before Diana died, I had established some opinions about Diana that I still hold.

On the other hand, some people even today probably don't think much about Camilla or Diana and will believe the "spin" of the moment, because they haven't spent a lot of time forming opinions either way. Others, like many people in this thread, pay attention to royalty and hold opinions about royalty, but change those opinions based on changing circumstances (or changing biases in the media). Others will never change their opinions no matter what.

None of us were eyewitnesses to what happened in the Wales marriage. We read the headlines in the mid-1990s and formed opinions accordingly, and then Diana died and more information came out, and we re-evaluated our opinions of her. Then Charles married Camilla and we got to see Camilla as royal Duchess rather than home-wrecking mistress. Times change, and we learn new pieces of information and discard old ones.

I think that the way Charles and Camilla are received, upon Charles' accession to the throne, will depend a lot on how the media chooses to portray them. Will Charles be portrayed as an old, out-of-touch man and Camilla as his stable but boring (and also elderly) consort? Or will the media celebrate a man who waited years and went through many personal trials, but finally ascended the throne with his "soulmate" at his side? Whichever angle the media takes is the perspective most people will take as well. (IMO.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 11-22-2010, 11:11 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
The ladies on 'The VIEW' (it's on the television but I'm not watching it as such) are attempting to dissect the topic of Camilla's title, and my god, these women wouldn't know facts if they came up and bit them on the ankles.

* Usually, the wife of the King is the 'Princess Consort'

* Elizabeth II's father was George VII

* Apparently George VII was Queen Victoria's son, according to Joy.

.lol.

Such ignorance. If you're going to talk about something, at least do a little background research before you open your mouth.

George VII!

I am actually confused. Don't most people think that a Queen is the wife of a King? I didn't know the usual opinion was "Princess Consort"!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 11-22-2010, 11:12 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
I think that the way Charles and Camilla are received, upon Charles' accession to the throne, will depend a lot on how the media chooses to portray them. Will Charles be portrayed as an old, out-of-touch man and Camilla as his stable but boring (and also elderly) consort? Or will the media celebrate a man who waited years and went through many personal trials, but finally ascended the throne with his "soulmate" at his side? Whichever angle the media takes is the perspective most people will take as well. (IMO.)
Excellent post!
I certainly hope it is the latter portrayal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 11-22-2010, 11:15 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,315
rmay, I was born exactly one year after Diana. I remember not only the accident in the tunnel, but all the (I had to think a moment of a polite way to put it) *history* for the 20 years leading up to it. The whole "soulmate" gig is, IMO, convenient revisionist history in order to make it more palatable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 11-22-2010, 11:49 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
rmay, I was born exactly one year after Diana. I remember not only the accident in the tunnel, but all the (I had to think a moment of a polite way to put it) *history* for the 20 years leading up to it. The whole "soulmate" gig is, IMO, convenient revisionist history in order to make it more palatable.
Where we were and what history we were alive for is only an added bonus I think in this question about the Monarchy under Charles. With both of us living in the US, I imagine that as with me, much of what information we both had on the BRF and their troubles and turmoils were mostly gleaned from the tabloids, newspapers and media coverage. I have to admit that mine was and until I arrived here at TRF, I was very uninformed as to what was what and how things work and why they worked the way they did.

One thing I did learn is that Charles is no fool. He's a very intelligent and creative thinker along with being sensitive and very much duty conscious.
He's in NO way a saint and has faults like the rest of us do and has had his failures in personal relationships as any human. When he's interested in something, he's passionate about it almost to the point of it being an obsession sometimes I think. (this last statement is MY opinion only).

I do think when Charles does become King, he will have things in place that will be followed up on such as his areas of the Prince's Trust that he's put years and years into. Although staying out of things politically wise, he will talk extensively to people and be genuinely interested and informed as to what is going on at all times.

I've mentioned in a previous post elsewhere that Camilla is a person that is very much comfortable in her own skin. Its only been lately that I've also been seeing in photos and by actions that Charles is becoming comfortable in his also.

I still think he'll go down in history though as the Green King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 11-22-2010, 11:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
rmay, I was born exactly one year after Diana. I remember not only the accident in the tunnel, but all the (I had to think a moment of a polite way to put it) *history* for the 20 years leading up to it. The whole "soulmate" gig is, IMO, convenient revisionist history in order to make it more palatable.

I somewhat older than you and as I wasn't part of the Wales marriage only remember what we were told by the media and by them. I remember reading, in the press, the list of things they had in common a day or so after the engagement and the list had about three things - country pursuits (she lied about that), classical music (again she lied about that - as, according to the media that was her favourite despite it being popular music at the time) and children. There was also an article that pointed out that she stayed at Andrew's 21st birthday party all night while Charles left shortly after his parents (along with Anne, who was pregnant with Zara at the time) to let the young ones enjoy their music. That was before the wedding but even then it was clear in the press that they weren't suited. There were questions being asked about that very question within days of the engagement announcement here.

I too remember all the stories and the press and see NO revisionist history being written about a man being in love with a woman for over 40 years but having, by a number of circumstances, being not allowed to marry her. They are soulmates and always were. Charles was in love with Camilla. She married another man but he still had feelings for her and she for him. Due to the nature of her marriage they had another affair. He asked her to check out the young girl who was thinking of asking to be his wife (many men ask women to do that by the way - or they ask their male friends - to get other opinions). She thought it would work. He proposes and tries to make the marriage work. The wife was so demanding that he gave up trying to make her happy - getting rid of most of his staff within the first couple of years of marriage, changing royal protocol about raising children, etc wasn't enough for her. He sought advice on how to help her but she never responded. In 1986 they both took lovers - Diana said 1986 for Charles and Camilla getting back together and that is also the year Diana took up with Hewitt so they both started cheating on each other about the same time. She then co-operates with the Morton book and tells the Queen, her husband, children and the world that she didn't do so (more lies so how can we even believe a word she says when she has lied to us and to her family so many times). They both do interviews - Charles admits to being unfaithful 'only after the marriage had irretrievably broken down' but of course he has to be lying doesn't he? Well no - he doesn't have a history of lying so why would he lie now particualy when he doesn't give a definite date - the marriage could have 'irretrievably broken down' by the time the wedding breakfast was over couldn't it? Camilla and Andrew end their marriage leaving Camilla free and as Charles and Diana have separated they are able to be together more. Diana continues to chase men and has a string of lovers, and is the third person in the ending of at least one - the captain of the English Rugby team where she had the affair with the husband and the wife named her as the third person in that marriage. Then there was Oliver Hoare and the annoying phone calls from Diana's personal phone - but they could have been done by a member of her staff at 2 and 3 and 4 in the morning of course. Diana then does the Panorama interview - on her parents-in-laws wedding anniversary no less - a complete show of lack of respect for her monarch - in which she tries to destroy her husband and the father of her children (or is he - have we DNA to prove that Charles is the father of either William or Harry). With her penchant for lying there has to be doubts about their paternity - although I do think Charles is the father of both. She died because she didn't wear a seatbelt, got in the car with a drunken driver, gave up real security for the pretend security of the Al Fayad family, tried to prevent the paparrazzi getting photos etc. Charles then has a chance for happiness, which I won't begrudge anyone.

Charles will be a wonderful King because he has the woman he loves as his supporter, has dedicated himself to his country all his life and done fabulous work for charity, especially for the young people of Britain with The Princes Trust.

Of course to the Diana fanatics he should be punished forever for making her unhappy and she should be made into a saint for lying to him, the country and the world and for making him miserable.

I remember the happy, carefree Prince Charles of the 1970s, the miserable man on the 1980s and 1990s and now am seeing that happy prince again, with Camilla by his side. I thank God regularly for restoring happiness to this man who so richly deserves it for his life of dedication and hardwork and foresight.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 11-23-2010, 12:16 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,235
The long and checkered history of the relationships of and between Charles and Diana are not relevant to a thread about the future of the monarchy under Charles, and further posts on that subject will be deleted.

wbenson
British Forums moderator
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 11-23-2010, 01:03 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
I rather enjoyed his documentary Harmony about earth's environment. I admire Charles' passion for the environment especially before going green became popular and when people called him crazy. I was rather inspired after watching the program, the conservation of the environment is an issue people need to take seriously. I am glad Charles is supporting this very important cause. He is making himself relevant. I hope Harmony win's an award too.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 11-23-2010, 01:08 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,866
I've missed the program here and hopefully will catch it if its on again. I do definitely want to get the book Harmony as I think it will have far more information in it than would ever be covered in a TV documentary.

Do I hear another vote for Charles being the Green King?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 11-23-2010, 01:13 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Charles will be a wonderful King
A rather short extract from a bountiful post, but..

I can't say I believe Charles will be seen as being a 'wonderful King'. Unfortunately for him, I think he'll be considered a more 'momentary King'. An old man (assuming of course) just filling in time before his son succeeds him as monarch.

I think the community at large will adopt that kind of attitude towards his reign, though not necessarily all factions of society.

The likeliness he will be a much older man when he ascends the throne only continues to mount and I can't imagine he will encourage any real enthusiasm throughout Britain, or the Commonwealth for that matter. Especially if he's gagged from verbalising his thoughts on renewables, organics and other social and environmental issues. From relative proactivity to near immediate silence would not be an easy transition to accept and I think finding the balance will be somewhat of a challenge.

I of course want him to be King and wish him an unturbulant and happy reign, but I envisage it to be a relatively uninspiring one in terms of length and legacy.

I naturally, would like to be proven wrong and I hope I am.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 11-23-2010, 03:59 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Edward VII had a short reign but it was a wonderful reign and an inspiring one.
Length is no determinate of legacy or inspiration.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 11-23-2010, 04:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Sure, but you (generally speaking) can't really compare a monarch at the turn of last century with one who is yet to inherit. A very different time with very different issues to face. It's all relative.
__________________

__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 287 08-24-2014 07:56 AM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman palace poland pom pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:00 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]